1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 27, 2002, the defendant obtained approval for the use of the 197 household units among the D apartment houses (rental apartment) and neighborhood living facilities in Tong-si. On December 4, 2002, the defendant completed registration of the preservation of ownership as to the 197 household units of the above apartment on December 4, 2002.

B. The plaintiffs completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on sale on each of the corresponding dates stated in the "contract Date" column in the list of the purchase price by plaintiff by plaintiff by the annexed list Nos. 2 of the defendant (Provided, That each of the above apartment units of this case (hereinafter referred to as "each of the above apartment units of this case") in the corresponding date stated in the "Contract Date" column in the corresponding list Nos. 79, No. 89, No. 108, hereinafter the same shall apply) among the above apartment units 197 households as "sale price" (hereinafter referred to as "each of the above apartment units of this case"), and the "Registration Date" as stated in the "Registration Date."

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry in the Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6 (including a tentative number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

A. The plaintiffs of the original defendant's assertion that the sale conversion price of each apartment of this case, which is the publicly constructed rental house, is the arithmetic mean of the construction cost and the appraised value, and the construction cost reflected in the above construction cost, not the standard construction cost, but the construction cost actually invested. However, since the sale price paid by the plaintiffs exceeds the "justifiable conversion price" calculated based on the construction cost actually invested in each apartment of this case, the part concerning the sale price exceeding the "justifiable conversion price" of each apartment of this case, is invalid as a violation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, the defendant's sale price is invalid.